Sermon LXXI. On the Colour and Odour of the Spiritual Lilies, and on the Difference between the Unity of Nature in the Father and the Son, and the Unity of will in Creator and Creature

"My Beloved to me, and I to Him, Who feedeth among the lilies."

The present discourse begins, my brethren, at the point where we left off in the last. The Bridegroom, as I was saying, is a lily, yet not a "lily among thorns." For He has no thorns "Who did no sin." But He has pronounced His Spouse to be a "lily among thorns"; and if even she should affirm that she has no thorns, "she deceiveth herself, and the truth is not in her." He also declares Himself to be a flower and a Hly, but nowhere tells us that He is a "lily among thorns." On the contrary. He says, "I am the Flower of the field, and the Lily of the valleys." There is here no mention of thorns; because of all men He is the only one who is not obliged to exclaim with the Psalmist, "I am turned in my anguish whilst the thorn is fastened." He therefore can never be without lilies Who must ever be without sin; for He is all white and always "beautiful above the sons of men." Do thou, then, who hearest or readest what I am now saying make it thy care to grow HHes in the garden of thy soul if thou dost wish to have Him for thy Guest, Who abides only among the lilies. Let thy actions, thy aims, and thy desires proclaim themselves liUes by their spiritual whiteness and perfume. For morals, like material things, have their own colours and odours. And colour and odour are just as distinct from each other in spiritual as in material objects. Conscience is the faculty which judges of moral colours, moral odours are distinguished by fame. "You have made our savour to stink before Pharao and his servants," said the "officers of the children of Israel" to Moses and Aaron, speaking of public opinion. Actions derive their colours from a twofold source, namely, the intention of the heart and the judgment of the conscience. Vices are coloured black, virtues white; but in order to determine which is which recourse must be had to the conscience. The word of the Lord concerning the single eye and the evil eye stands firm, because it draws a clear line of demarcation between the morally white and the morally black, and separates the light from the darkness.¹ Therefore, whatever proceeds from a pure heart and a good conscience is to be accounted white and virtuous. If, further, it succeeds in coming into good report, it even deserves now to be called a lily, as lacking neither the colour nor the odour of a lily. For although fair fame can add nothing to the intrinsic value of virtue, it certainly enhances its brightness and beauty.

Jk But if the intention of the mind be blemished, the'^l same blemish shall be found in all that comes forth from it. For the branch cannot be healthy when the root is rotten. And therefore we ought not to regard as a lily whatsoever springs from a root so vitiated and inherits its corruption, whether it be action, or speech,. or prayer, no matter how favourably opinion may judge of it. The Uly's perfume is there indeed, but not the lily's colour. For how can that be called a lily which is discoloured with the stain of an impure intention? Fame has certainly no power to transform into virtue what is declared to be vice by the verdict of conscience. Virtue indeed can be content with the whiteness of a pure intention, even though the odour of fame should be lacking. But the perfume of good report will never be able to supply for the defect of colour in the intention. Nevertheless, the man of virtue will always make it his study, so far as depends on him, to "provide good things not only in the sight of God, but also in the sight of men," so that he may be in truth a lily.

But God's forgiveness is also a whiteness of the soul. Hence He says Himself, by His Prophet Isaias, "If your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow; and if they be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool." There is yet another spiritual whiteness, that, namely, which shines in the soul of the man, who shows mercy with cheerfulness. For if you observe him whom the Psalmist describes as an "acceptable man that sheweth mercy and lendeth," does it not seem to you that the very joyousness of his heart has impressed what I may call the splendour of piety on the features of his face, yea, and on the work of his hands? Just as, on the contrary, when one renders a service with sadness and, as it were, by compulsion, there appears both on his action and on his countenance, not a bright, but a black colour. And therefore the Apostle tells us that "God loveth a cheerful giver." Perhaps He also loves the man who gives with sadness? Certainly not, for the Lord, who "had respect to Abel "on account of the brightness of his good will, turned away His eyes from Cain, because "his countenance had fallen, "as the effect, no doubt, of gloominess, and jealousy. Consider here, my brethren, how repulsive must be the colour of melancholy and sadness, since God is thus obliged to avert from it His Face. How the brightness of a cheerful heart enhances the value of a benefit is thus beautifully and elegantly expressed by the poet: —

The kindly look in worth outweighs Whatever gift the hand conveys."²

Nor is it only the "cheerful giver" whom "God loveth," He also loveth him "that giveth with simplicity." For simplicity is another species of spiritual whiteness. This can be proved from its contrary, because duplicity is a blemish. Indeed it would be more correct to call it a black stain. For in reality what difference is there between duplicity and deceit? Now of the deceitful man the Psalmist says, "In His sight he hath done deceitfully, that his iniquity may be found unto hatred." And therefore, as the same Prophet declares, "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin, and in whose spirit there kis no guile." The Lord Himself, in a few words, comprehends very beautifully the two stains of deceit and sadness, when He says, "Be not as the hypocrites, sad." The Bridegroom, consequently, as being the

Virtue of God" finds His delight in the virtues; and [as being the "Lily of the valleys," loves to feed among the lilies; and as being the "Brightness of eternal life," seeks His pleasure in bright souls.

Perhaps, therefore, when the Spouse speaks of her Beloved as feeding among the lilies, she only wishes to inform us how greatly He is pleased with the whiteness and the fragrance of the virtues. Of old, it is true, He used to "feed among the lilies," even corporally, whilst He reclined at table and took corporal food with Mary and Martha (who were undoubtedly lilies) and at the same time refreshed His Spirit with the devotion and the virtues of these saintly women. Had some prophet come into the room at such a time, or an angel, or any spiritually-minded person, provided he could recognise the Majesty of Him Who was being entertained there, would he not be stupefied at the sight of so much condescension on the part of God, and so much familiarity between Him and the two sisters, holy indeed in soul and body, but still of the earth and of the weaker sex? And would he not have reason to testify and to say, "I have seen the Bridegroom, not only dwelling, but actually feeding among the lilies"? In this way, therefore, the Beloved has been found feeding among the lilies in both senses, I mean, according to the flesh and according to the spirit. It seems to me that He also fed the lilies in return, but spiritually. Surely He could not have been fed by them unless they at the same time were being fed by Him. Oh, how He consoled their timidity! How He rejoiced their humility! How He enriched and enlivened their devotion! This makes it plain to you that for Him to be fed is to feed. But consider now if the converse be not equally true, namely, that for Him to feed is to be fed. "God that feedeth me from my youth until this day," says the holy Patriarch Jacob. Kind Father of the family, Who has solicitous care for the members of His household, especially in the evil days, feeding them in their hunger, providing them with the "bread of life and understanding," and so nourishing them unto immortal vigour! But I have no doubt that in feeding them He also feeds Himself. For the food which He most "gladly eateth" is our progress in virtue. Hence the Prophet declares, "The joy of the Lord is our strength."

It is thus, my brethren, that the Bridegroom feeds Himself by feeding us, and feeds us by feeding Himself; because, namely, whilst He replenishes our souls with spiritual gladness, He at the same time finds pleasure for Himself in our advancement towards perfection. My penitence is His food, my salvation is His food, yea, I myself am His food.³ In the words of the Psalmist, does He not "eat ashes hke bread"? But I am ashes, because I am a sinner, and therefore am I eaten by Him. I am masticated when I am reproved; I am swallowed when I am instructed; Fam undergoing decomposition in the stomach when I begin to change my life; I am digested when I am transformed into His image; I am assimilated when I am conformed to His will. "Wonder not at this," my brethren. The Bridegroom both feeds us and is fed by us in order to unite us the more closely to Himself. Without such reciprocity of relation we should not be perfectly one with Him. For were I to feed on Him whilst He did not feed on me. He, just as now, would appear to be in me, yet I should not truly be in Him. On the other hand, if He were to feed on me without my feeding on Him, I could not be said to have Him in myself, although He would still contain me. Thus in neither of these two cases would there be perfect union between us. Therefore, let Him feed on me, so that I may be in Him; and, conversely, let me feed on Him, so that He may be in me. In this way we shall be fully and firmly united to each other. He abiding in me and I in Him.

Do you wish me, my brethren, to illustrate what I have been saying by an example? Then lift up your eyes to an instance of unity far more sublime, yet similar to this, the unity of the Word with His Father. Now if the Bridegroom were in the Father in such a manner that the Father would not be likewise in Him, or if the Father were in the Bridegroom in such a manner that the Bridegroom would not be likewise in Him,— I make bold to say it. Their union would come short of perfection, if indeed it deserved to be called union at all. As it is, however, the Word is in the Father, and the Father in the Word. Therefore, the union between Them is in all respects perfect, and the Father and the Word are truly and entirely one. In this way, then, the soul for whom "it is good to adhere to her God," must not consider herself perfectly united to Him, until she has perceived that He abides in her and she in Him. Not that she can say, even then,that she is one with God in the same sense in which the Father and the Word are one; although the Apostle assures us that "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit." Thus we have Scriptural authority for the union of spirit between God and the soul, but not for any unity of nature. I speak not of myself, who am only a sinner, but no creature whatever, whether of earth or of heaven, unless one who has taken leave of his senses, will dare to usurp the words of the Only-Begotten and presume to say, "I and the Father are one." On the other hand, dust and ashes though I be, nevertheless, relying on the testimony of Scripture, I should feel not the slightest hesitation in claiming to be one spirit with God, if only I were convinced by indubitable evidence that I adhered to Him, like one of those who abide in charity, and consequently abide in God and have God abiding in them; because they feed on God and God feeds on them. It is to this kind of union the Apostle refers, as I think, when he says, "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit." What then? The Word says, "I am in the Father and the Father is in Me," also, "I and the Father are one," that is, one Nature. Man's claim is less: "I am in God and God is in me, and we are one spirit."

But⁴ surely the Father and the Son have not to feed on Each Other in order to comprehend Each Other and thus coalesce in a unity of nature; just as Creator and creature assimilate each other by a species of mutual "manducation," and are thereby rendered one, not indeed in nature, but one in spirit. Far be such a thought from us, my brethren! For the mutual circuminsession of Father and Son is very different from the mutual indwelling of God and His creature; as also the unity which results in the one case is infinitely more perfect than that realised in the other. ' This distinction of unions is indicated to us by the diversity of gender in unus, the masculine, and unum, the neuter. For the Father and the Word are not so one that they can be called unus, nor are God and man so one as that we may speak of them as unum. "Give occasion to a wise man and wisdom shall be added to him"; and so you, if you be wise, will take this occasion to increase in wisdom. For you may prudently observe that in the first comparison the neuter unum signifies a unity of substance or nature, whilst in the second the masculine form unus, still expresses unity, but only a unity of spirit, entirely different from the other. That is to say, God and man, although "one spirit," have nevertheless their own distinct natures and essences, whereas the Father and the Son, as you know, are in nature absolutely identified. You see, then, my brethren, that the relation between Creator and creature does not even deserve the name of unity when compared with the unique and sovereign unity between the Divine Persons. For how can you have unity there, where there is plurality of natures, distinction of substances? Nevertheless, the soul that is "joined to the Lord" is called and is truly "one spirit" with Him. Distinction of substances is no obstacle to unity of this kind, which results, not from a confusion of natures, but rather from a conformity of wills. It is in the same sense that many hearts are said to be one heart, and many souls one soul, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, "The multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul." Therefore we have unity of spirit where we have conformity of wills.

/

COLOUR OF SPIRITUAL LILIES ^^y

But what shall I say of that substantial or essential unity of one Divine Person with Another, which does not arise from the coalescence of distinct elements, but has subsisted from all eternity? It is evidently not the effect of any kind of mutual manducation, like the spiritual oneness of God with the soul, because it is not an effect at all. It simply is. It is neither a unity of aggregation, nor a unity of composition, nor any other species of unity which cannot be called simply and absolutely one. And not alone have the Father and Son the same Existence, the same Nature, and the same Will, but it is equally true that in Them Existence, Nature, and Will are one and the same thing. For as regards the Divine Persons, there is no distinction whatever between existence and nature, or between will or volition and existence and nature. Therefore we may not say that the unity whereby the Father and the Word are one, results from a confusion of natures, or existences, or wills, because there is no such plurality of elements. Indeed we must not represent it as a product at all, for it simply and eternally is. It is not a result in the Nature of God, but belongs to that Nature essentially. The Father and the Son abide Each in the Other in an ineffable, yea, in an incomprehensible manner, as reciprocally Contained and Container. Nevertheless, They contain without dividing, just as, conversely. They are contained without division. Accordingly the Church sings in her Office,

*' The Father holds the Word entire

As whole the Son contains His Sire."⁵

The Father is in the Son, in Whom He is always well pleased. The Son is in the Father, from Whom He can never be separated, as He can never cease to be generated. Moreover, it is by charity that God is in man and man in God, according to the testimony of St. John, who says, "He that abideth in charity, abideth in God and God in him." This union is a union of conformity, uniting God and man in one spirit, or rather making them one spirit. But do you not recognise the distinction between it and the substantial unity of the Divine Persons? Surely unity of essence cannot be the same thing as unity or conformity of wills. I have already called your attention to the manner in which this diversity of unity is signified by the grammatical distinction between unus and unum, how the unity of Father with Son cannot be expressed by the masculine form, unus, nor the unity of God and the soul by the neuter, unum. The Father and the Word are not so one that They can be called unus, because the Father and the Son are not one but two really distinct Persons. Yet They can be called and truly are unum, inasmuch as They have not Each His own but one common Nature or Substance. The case is quite contrary as between God and the soul. For their union is not a unity of nature but of will. Therefore they may not be described as one thing (unum), although they can be said with truth to be one spirit (unus), that is to say, if they are really bound to each other by the bonds of love. But such a unity is produced, as observed before, by conformity of wills, not by any confusion of essences.

From what I have said you understand, I think, not only the distinction but also the inequality of these unities, one of which is the unity of a single simple Essence, the other the aggregative unity of many distinct essences. What indeed can be more unequal than the unity of one and the unity of many? The different forms of the numeral, imus and unum, as I have said more than once, enable us to mark this diversity; because whilst unum expresses the identity of Essence in the Father and the Son, unus designates a unity, not of nature, but of will and affection, between God and His creature. Nevertheless, the Father and the Son may also be called unus consistently with truth, provided the numeral is used with a substantive. For instance, we may say that the Persons are one (unus) God, one Lord, and so with every other attribute which is absolute and common to all Three, not relative and proper to One. The reason of this is, because They have not Each His own Divinity, or Each His own Majesty, any more than They have Each His own Nature or Essence. For all such things are not distinct or divided, but one and the same in Them, I should rathei have said one and the same with Them! What is that unity, my brethren, according to which many hearts, as we read, become one heart, and many souls one soul? To my mind it appears even unworthy of the name of unity, as compared with this, which, instead of combining distinct entities, singularly seals' the indistinction of one. Singular therefore and sovereign is the unity of the Divine Persons, since it IS not constituted by any combination of distinct elements, but has subsisted from everlasting. It has not been formed by the mutual spiritual feeding on Each Other of Father and Son, because it never had a beginning. It is something self-subsisting. Much less is it to be considered a conjunction of different essences or a harmony of different wills, since there is no such plurality of essences or wills. The Divine Persons, as already remarked, have but one Essence and but one Will. And surely there can be no question of harmony, or conjunction, or composition, or of any other kind of unity presupposing a distinction of parts, where you have only a single object. For conformity of wills at least two wills are required. Similarly, there must be at least two distinct essences for an essential conjunction or coalition. Therefore we must look for neither of these modes of unity in the Father and the Son, because They have one and the same Essence, one and the same Will. Both Essence and Will are one in Them, or rather—to repeat myself—Essence and Will are not only one thing in the Persons, but they are also one thing with the Persons. Consequently the Father and the Son are really and absolutely one, abiding Each in the Other as incomprehensibly as unchangeably. Nevertheless, if anyone thinks proper to maintain that there is a conformity between the Father and the Son, I will not contradict him, provided he means by this conformity, not a union of distinct wills, but the unity of a single Will.

But as regards God and the soul, since they subsist and are distinguished with their own proper wills and essences, we must hold that their mutual indwelling is entirely different from the divine circuminsession, and results not from a commingling of natures but from a concord of wills. The unity between them, therefore, is nothing more than the union of wills, the union of charity. It is a blissful unity to experience in oneself, yet unworthy to be called unity, if compared to the unity of the Divine Persons. The Psalmist knew by experience what this unity was when he exclaimed, "It is good for me to adhere to my God." Yea, very good, provided I adhere to Him perfectly. But where is the man that perfectly adheres to his God, unless it is he who, abiding in God as being loved by God, at the same time draws God into himself by loving Him in return? When, therefore, God and man are completely united to each other, as they are in truth by being incorporated in each other, so to speak, by a perfect, intimate, and mutual love, then I shall have no hesitation in affirming that God abides in man and man in God. Man, however, has abode in God from everlasting, because from everlasting he has been loved by God,—if yet he be one of those who can say with the Apostle, "He hath loved and graced us in His beloved Son before the foundation of the world"; whilst God only begins to abide in man at the moment when He begins to be loved by man. If such is the case, it follows necessarily that man may abide in God even when God does not abide in man. But God does not abide in any man who does not abide in Him. For if a man is not loved of God with the love of election, he may indeed love God for a time, but certainly he cannot abide in love.⁶ On the other hand, it is possible for one to be loved of God without as yet loving Him in return. Otherwise how can it be true what the Evangelist says "He hath first loved us"? But when he who has been prevented by love begins at last to reciprocate that love, then, I say, man abides in God and God in man. But as for him who never loves God, it is manifest that he is never loved by God. Consequently, he never abides in God nor God in him. I have spoken all this with the purpose of demonstrating the difference between the unity whereby the Father and the Word are one in Nature, and that which makes God and the soul that is joined to Him one spirit For il this distinction is not borne in mind, we shall be in danger of regarding the prerogative of the adoptive son as equal to that of the Only-Begotten; because, just as we read of the Word that He is in the Father and the Father in Him, so likewise is it written of the man who abides in charity, that "he abideth in God and God in him." t

Having said all I wanted to say on this subject, 1 must now return to Him '■ Who feedeth among the lilies "because it was this feeding that occasioned the digression which has led me so far out of my course As to whether or not the digression was necessary, it is for you, my brethren, to decide. I have already proposed for your consideration two expositions of this passage. I have interpreted the feeding among the lilies to mean either that the Beloved, as being the ■' Virtue of God," and the "Splendour of His glory" finds His delight in the virtues of the innocent: or that in His mystical body, which is the Church, He receives sinners to pardon, to incorporate whom in Himself He was made sin "although" He made no sin "• so" that the body of sin might be destroyed. in which by their sins they were once "planted together," and that from sinners they might be rendered righteous, "being justified freely by His grace."

I shall now submit to your judgment yet another interpretation, which has suggested itself to my mind It explains the text satisfactorily, I think, and shall also serve to bring this discourse to a conclusion The Word of God is Truth, He is also the Bridegroom. You are aware of this. Now attend to what follows When this Word is heard but not heeded. He remains empty and hungry, as it were, and becomes very sad and querulous, for that He has been uttered to no profit or advantage. On the other hand, let compliance be yielded, and now does He not seem to you to have grown, in a certain sense, large and corpulent, as If He had fed Himself full on the fruits of obedience and the produce of justice, because hearing has been followed by action? Hence we hear Him in the Apocalypse saying to us, "Behold I stand at the gate and knock. If any man shall hear My voice and open to Me the door, I will come unto him, and will sup with him, and he with Me." This interpretation is also supported, as it seems, by the words of the Lord where He says through His Prophet Isaias, speaking of the Eternal Word, "My Word, Which shall go forth from My Mouth, shall not return to Me void, but It shall do whatsoever I please, and shall prosper in the things for which I sent It." Mark the expression "It shall not return to Me void." As if He should say.

My Word shall not return to Me hungry but prospering in all things. He shall be filled with the virtuous actions of those who will obey Him from love. Even m ordinary human speech, our words are "then said to be fulfilled (impletus) when they have been united to action. As if it were intended to imply that so long as they remain unwedded to deeds, they are empty and lean, and, in a sense, suffering from hunger.

But listen to the Divine Word Himself telling us with what kind of food He is nourished. "My meat"^ He says, "is to do the will of Him That sent Me.' Here my brethren, you have the word of the Word plainly indicating that good works are His food, if yet He can find them among the lilies, that is to say, among the virtues. For He Who only "feedeth among the lilies "of the virtues, will not so much as touch any food He may discover apart from them, no matter how good it appears. Thus, for instance, He will not accept an alms-deed from the hand of the robber or the usurer, no, nor even from the hand of the hypocrite who causes the trumpet to sound before him, whenever he gives an alms, "that he may be honoured by men." Neither will He ever hear the prayer ot them "who love to pray in the corners of the streets that they may be seen by men." For the prayer of the transgressor "shall be an abomination to Him. Vainly also dost "thou offer thy gift at the altar if "thou remember that thy brother hath anything against thee." The Lord had no regard for the offerings of Cain. Why? Because he walked not blamelessly with his brother. According to the testimony of the holy Prophet Isaias, He abominates the Sabbath, and the new moons, and the sacrifices of the Jews. He even protests openly that His "soul hateth them; and He asks, "When you came before Me, who required these things at your hands? In my opinion their hands did not smell of the lilies, and therefore He "Who feedeth among the lilies," and not among the thorns, refused to accept any gifts from them. Why should I not say that their hands were rather bristling with thorns than covered with lilies, the hands of them to whom the same Prophet addressed the reproach, "Your hands are full of blood "? The hands of Esau were hairy (pilosae) as we read, and so hairy that they appeared thorny (spinosae). Hence he was not admitted to minister before the Holy One.

I am afraid that even amongst ourselves, my brethren, there are some whose gifts the Bridegroom does not accept, because they are not redolent of the lilies. For if "in the day of your fast your own will is found," such a fast cannot be acceptable to the Bridegroom, such a fast can give Him no pleasure, inasmuch as it savours not of the lily of obedience, but rather of the vice of self-love. And I believe that this remark will apply not alone to our fasting, but equally to our silence, to our watching, to our prayer, to our lecture, to our manual labour, in short, to all our monastic observances, if our own will be found in them, instead of obedience to the will of our superior. These exercises although good in themselves, yet, as the fruit of self-will, seem to me altogether unworthy of being reckoned among the lilies, that is to say, among the virtues. And he that performs them thus shall hear from the Prophet, as the Jews of old, "Is this such a service as I have chosen? saith the Lord"; and this also, "In the day of thy good works thine own will was found." How great an evil, then, must self-will be, seeing that it makes your good works not good for you! It is therefore necessary that these good works should be likewise lilies, because He "Who feedeth among the lilies" will taste nothing that has been defiled with self-will. For He is Wisdom that ' ' reacheth everywhere by reason of her purity, and no defiled thing cometh into her." Therefore the Bridegroom loves to feed among the lilies, that is, among hearts that are clean and pure. But how long will He feed? "Till the day break and the shadows retire." We have now come to a dense and shady wood, dark with the depth of its mystery. Let us wait for the clear daylight before we attempt to enter. For whilst I have been discoursing at greater length than usual, lo! the day has declined, and against our will we are compelled to leave the lilies. For myself, I am not conscious of the least fatigue after speaking so long, because the fragrance of the flowers has prevented any feeling of lassitude. Only a little more remains of the verse I am at present treating. Yet this little is pregnant with profundity of meaning, as indeed is the case with every part of this Canticle. But He Who alone can reveal mysteries, will answer to us, as I hope, when we begin to knock, and will not close the mouths of those that invoke His aid; for to open the mouths which are shut is more the custom of the Bridegroom of the Church, Jesus Christ Our Lord, Who is over all things, God blessed for ever. Amen. ^

Footnotes

1. "The light of thy body is thy eye; if thy eye be single thy whole body shall be lightsome.' But if thy 'eye be evil thy whole body shall be darksome" (Matt. vi. 22-3). — (Translator.) ↩

2. "Super omnia vultus Accessere boni." Ovid, Meta, viii. 677-8. ↩

3. In the third of the "orationes post Missam" in the Cistercian Missal and Breviary occurs the sentence "Cibus mens Christus et ego Ejus." — (Translator.) ↩

4. According to Horst and Mabillon there are several redundant passages in what follows, which the latter explains by saying that the Saint retouched this part of the sermon after its first publication, and that in later editions the original and the corrected sentences were given as distinct. It may be said, however, that in discussing so abstruse a question a preacher would naturally repeat himself, presenting the same thought in different ways in order to make his meaning the better understood. — (Translator.) ↩

5. "In Patre totus Filiiis, Et totus in verbo Pater." Hymn for Lauds in Canonical Office. — (Translator.) II. Y ↩

6. "Manere in dilectione non potest." These words must not be taken to mean that the want of perseverance in grace and charity is due to any other cause than the free-will of man, but only that the divine prescience cannot be deceived. God foresees with infallible certainty the state in which each human soul leaves the body. But as it is impossible that what is thus foreknown should not come to pass, so is it impossible for him to continue in charity who in the divine prescience is foredoomed to be lost. See note at p. 249, vol. i.—(Translator.) ↩